Four trustees sent a letter to the governor requesting the meeting to address the SACS inquiry, school finances and other issues. The letter to Bentley was dated Jan. 19, the same date as the SACS letter to school President Andrew Hugine is dated.

Trustee James Montgomery, who was one of the four trustees who dispatched the letter to Bentley, said the letter wasn't sent on Jan. 19 because Hugine did not forward the SACS letter to trustees until the next day. And Montgomery said he twice asked board president pro tem Odysseus Lanier to call a meeting and got no response.

Asked if it seemed strange that some board members might request a meeting with the governor before requesting the president pro tem to call one, Lanier said, "I don't even need to answer that question. That's a rhetorical observation."

Divide apparent

Upon his being elected president pro tem on Oct. 29, Lanier told the board: "We're going to pull everyone together."

More than three months later, however, a divide remains apparent.

"It's been a challenge but it's achievable," Lanier said last week of board unity. "The more you allow people to have their say and we have thoughtful discussion and deliberation, I think we can get there.

"But it's a challenge. It's a challenge because of the historical environment."

Indeed, strife on the A&M board is hardly a recent development and hardly confined to the present members. When the board was seeking a new school president in 2008, some board members - in protest of the selection process - simply didn't show up for a meeting. The result was no quorum and the board could legally do no business.

Times file photoTrustee James Montgomery pointed to a possible conflict of interest regarding Lanier's company and Alabama A&M as a wedge dividing the board.

During his term, Avery - a longtime city councilman in Gadsden - recalled being removed as chairman of the research and development committee when former trustee Shefton Riggins was voted president pro tem. Avery said he didn't vote for Riggins, so Riggins demoted him.

Lanier followed the same path upon being elected in October. None of the four trustees who voted against him was appointed by Lanier to chair board committees.

Instead, two new trustees who had been on the board one month and had not yet been confirmed by the state Senate were appointed to chair committees. Three veteran board members - who voted against Lanier - received no appointments.

"The way you gain and get people to working together, (Lanier) should have appointed some of those folks who voted against him to a chairmanship," Avery said.

"They are so small-minded and so political, they don't understand how you build consensus, how you work together."

Asked last week about this criticism in appointing committee chairs, Lanier said, "I don't litigate board matters in the newspaper."

Avery also took issue with having inexperienced board members holding critical positions such as chair of a committee. Speaking of their inexperience, and applying a catchphrase Avery said is used at City Hall in Gadsden, Avery said, "They don't know where the bathroom is. That's a problem."

Evidence suggests division on the board follows closely to how the board voted for its president pro tem in October. Voting for Lanier were Lanier, Velma Tribue, Lucien Blank-enship, Chris Robinson, Andre Taylor, Norman Hill and Jerome Williams.

Fluid status

The status of Robinson and Taylor remains fluid. They were appointed by Gov. Bob Riley last year, but in the special legislative session in December for ethics reform their confirmations were not addressed by the Senate. Without confirmation, they were forced to leave the board.

But before leaving office last month, Riley reappointed both Robinson and Taylor and they will serve on the board pending Senate approval.

Voting for Raymond Burse as board president pro tem were Burse, Montgomery, Tom Bell and Chasidy Privett. Those four also sent the letter to Bentley, who was obligated under board bylaws to call a meeting when four or more board members requested one.

And those four have sponsored a resolution to be presented at today's meeting that, if approved, would establish a "Review Committee of Inquiry" that outlines a broad scope of investigative jurisdiction.

"I have reached out to everyone that didn't vote for me," Lanier said. "We're typically judged by our peers and other people in the community, based on our willingness to be team players, knowing when to lead and when to follow. We're held to a higher standard. That's just a part of the responsibility that we have."

But Lanier is central to the board's division, Montgomery said, because of allegations that Lanier's Houston-based company has a conflict of interest regarding the company's contract with the Alabama A&M Research Institute.

Hill, who voted for Lanier for president pro tem, has a similar conflict because his Birmingham company holds a contract with the university.

Both Lanier and Hill told The Times in December that they saw no conflict of interest.

"The thing that has really impacted the cohesion on the board is the fact that (Lanier), who is supposed to be the leader of the board, refuses to accept the fact that he has a conflict of interest," Montgomery said.

"The rest of the board members who are with him won't force him to accept that. They don't even want us to look into it."

On the agenda for today's meeting is an executive committee report on the conflict of interest. The executive committee is made up of the committee chairs, which were appointed by Lanier.

Where things go from here remains unclear. An ambitious agenda awaits the trustees today in Montgomery - including a committee report on the A&M Research Institute, an update on the university response to the SACS letter, and discussion of a protocol for board members to request information that has also strained board relationships.

Perspectives are mixed on the substance of the SACS letter but an inquiry gone wrong could ultimately cost the school its accreditation, which would be a devastating blow.

Lanier pointed to several stories from The Times being cited in the SACS letter.

"A lot of that stuff in the SACS letter came out of newspapers," Lanier said. "It came out of the newspapers. And that stuff in the newspaper has yet to be vetted properly."

Lanier said last week that each board member would have a chance to speak regarding the SACS letter.

"Everyone will have their say on the matter because it's only the right thing to do," he said. "We all have equal standing as board members."

But will the best interests of the university be utmost on the mind of the trustees today? Or will the in-fighting within the board prevail?

Last week, Avery was asked if some board members were more interested in maintaining their foothold on the board. ...